Congratulations to BWB&O’s Orange County Team for Securing a Strong MSJ Result in a Residential Gas Explosion Matter!
May 14, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPHuge Congratulations to Partner
Kevin Wheeler and Associate
Lindsey Wells for securing a strong result on a Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of their client, the City of Murrieta. This was a complex, multi-party matter arising from a residential gas leak and explosion, where Plaintiffs alleged the City and MFPD failed to properly respond to the incident. After multiple complaints were consolidated and extensive defense work narrowed the case, eighteen plaintiffs remained asserting five causes of action against the City, prompting a comprehensive MSJ/MSA targeting liability, causation, and damages.
The Court’s ruling reflects a significant win, particularly on the immunity framework. The Court eliminated the core negligence and assumed-duty claims arising from fire protection and emergency response activities. It further disposed of the misrepresentation and public nuisance claims. At the end of the day, three plaintiffs were dismissed entirely for failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, further reducing the scope of the case. While the dangerous condition claim remains, it does so in a very limited posture.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
AI Adoption in Construction: A UK Practitioner’s View
April 20, 2026 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessI recently talked with
Chris Brady, an AI adoption consultant based in Birmingham, UK, who has spent 18 years working in construction. Two years ago, he began integrating AI into his work with contractors and SMEs, initially as an add-on service, and it has since become his main business.
Chris now runs
Metrix, an AI consultancy focused on UK construction companies, alongside two other ventures: Trade Upskill, an education platform for construction professionals, and ctrldash.ai, a compliance-automation SaaS for construction SMEs, both of which are soon to launch.
What struck me most in our conversation was how grounded his approach is, built on years of direct industry experience rather than arriving from outside with a technology solution looking for a problem.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract
June 02, 2026 —
Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law BlogCalifornia law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:
- First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
- The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
- The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.
In
Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Contract Interpretation – Determining What the Contract Requires
March 24, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA good ole dispute on contract interpretation in government contracting. Contract interpretation disputes happen all the time in every jurisdiction under the sun. Think about that. Now, what’s the best way to avoid a contract interpretation dispute? Naturally, invest in the contract language and fully understand the scope of work. Make all of this clear. But, of course, this isn’t foolproof meaning you could still be doing this and you could still find yourself in a contract interpretation dispute. Although, if you are doing this, and being proactive, the contract interpretation disputes should be minimal and more streamlined.
In Liberty Technical Services, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 8385, 2026 WL 407656 (CBCA 2026), the dispute centered on whether the government owed the contractor for certain, necessary equipment (largely controllers, but also tanks and pumps) not specified in the contract. The government countered that this should be a non-issue because the contractor always acknowledged it was responsible for furnishing the unspecified, necessary equipment, and the contractor did actually provide the equipment without direction from the government. Each party claimed the contract was unambiguous when construed in context.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
A Couple of Mechanic’s Lien Bills in VA [UPDATED]
February 23, 2026 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWell, its that time of year again, the Virginia General Assembly is in session and looking to make changes to all kinds of things here in the Commonwealth. While most of those changes are well outside of the subject of Construction Law Musings, changes to the
mechanic’s lien statutes certainly are not. This year, the Virginia General Assembly is poised to make some big changes if certain legislation gets out of committee and passes the legislature, a description and some comments on these follow:
HB752 – Mechanics’ liens; liens attaching to property; memorandum of lien. [Original Description] Removes the exclusion of the attachment of a mechanic’s lien to property improved or repaired when the lien is based on a claim for repairs or existing structures. The bill further removes (i) the ability of a lien claimant to file any number of memoranda of lien including the details relating to the lien and (ii) the provisions of the Code specifying that no memorandum filed shall include sums due for (a) labor or materials furnished more than 150 days prior to the last day labor was performed or (b) material furnished to the job preceding the filing of such memorandum.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Insured Successfully Moves to Dismiss Insurer’s Suit to Eliminate Duty to Defend
January 06, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer had a duty to defend and dismissed the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. I.C. Refrigeration Services Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221768 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).
Flory Construction, Inc. sued the project owner, Highbridge, asserting claims for (1) foreclosure on mechanics liens; (2) breach of contract; and other cliams. Flory agreed to furnish labor, materials and equipment for improvements to Highbridge’s properties. Flory alleges Highbridge failed to provide payment despite Flory completing “all requested contract work . . . except to the extent prevented by Highbridge.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict
May 26, 2026 —
Gray Development GroupPHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction.
The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale.
The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market.
According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona.
Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing.
ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997.
About Gray Development Group
Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.
IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process
April 27, 2026 —
David J. Creagan, Guido Antolini, Bruce W. MacLennan & Gary P. Biehn - White and Williams LLPOn April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the first phase of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) tool in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) portal to administer refunds of duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a streamlined electronic filing process.
Background
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain tariffs imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. Subsequent proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade required CBP to develop a scalable refund process applicable not only to litigants but also to non-plaintiffs. According to CBP and court filings, approximately 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In response, CBP developed CAPE as an electronic, consolidated refund mechanism within ACE.
Reprinted courtesy of
David J. Creagan, White and Williams LLP,
Guido Antolini, White and Williams LLP,
Bruce W. MacLennan, White and Williams LLP and
Gary P. Biehn, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Creagan may be contacted at creagand@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Antolini may be contacted at antolinig@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. MacLennan may be contacted at maclennanb@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Biehn may be contacted at biehng@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story...
